Topic #3 Decision Making

I think my behavior was a "Compromise" at the first half of the discussion, and it changed to an "Avoidance".
First of all, my exam score is obviously not good at all, so I should behave as "Compete to Win". However, I just wanted to know what the other people thinking, so I carefully listened the argue.

When I had some questions about the extra credits and the test structure, I tried to question about it, but many other people talking at loud. Therefore, I tried to listen carefully to understand the issue instead of to question. However, the many people talked about many different topic at the same time. Some one said "No Essay", some others said "No T/F questions", some people asked about extra credit and curve, some other people tried to explain to another. I was so confused and did not get the issue. I just felt like "what are we talking about right now?"
Finally, I gave up to participate the discussion actively because I thought "even I did not participate well, people who are in the same range on the exam would participate to solve the problem. So I just need to follow them." I understand this behavior is absolutely not good, but to be honest, I was the person who did not participate actively.

I saw many people who behaved as "Compete to Win". I think the person who said "No T/F questions on the next exam!" is the one of the examples of the "Compete to Win". They strongly said about that issue even other person who are also "Compete to Win" said "No Essay, yes multiple-multiple" to push through their desired proposal.
I think people who said "Essay as a optional point on the next exam" are the "Collaborating" because they tried to frame a plan for both (No T/F side and No essay side). They explained the T/F question is same as multiple question. This group did not support only one side, but also think the benefit for both sides.
I think the leaders (2 men who stood in front of the classroom) were "Compromise" because they tried to listen and put together the opinion from all of the classmates. They performed very fairly, so I think they are "Compromise" person.
Actually, I could not find the differences between "Avoidance" and "Accommodation" from their behavior because both does not participate actively. The reason why they do not participate actively is in their mind, so I cannot understand it. They might behave as I did, or they just did not need to talk about the extra credit and the next exam because they got good grades.

I think we can make small group to talk about the issue first, and then each group talk to other group what they had in the discussion for the best solution for our issue. In the class, I was confused because many people talked about many different issue at the same time. There are about 40 students in the class and every single person has each opinion, so it was obvious many people talked at the same time. To avoid this, I think to make the group first is the best way to get much more better solution.
Or we can also give the more power to the leader except to make the decision. First, we make the rules such as "We have to follow the leader. We cannot talk without raising hands and until leader point him/her". I think it is easy way to ask every person's opinion and not to get mess up the issue. I think both of these are good to get the desirable result sooner and less conflict.